User talk:Kaisershatner/archive3

Re:The Krab nebula[edit]

Well Krab has made it easy to detect the socks by the lack of originality in thinking up new usernames. If one of the accounts has been editing longer than the others and has some useful contributions assign that as the 'puppet master'. Indef block all the others as sock accounts, no need at all to have them hanging around, and no need to warn them first (as it's obviously the same person). If the 'puppet master' account has no useful edits give an appropriate block to that (which might also be indefinite). Any further accounts that show exactly the same editing pattern indef block on sight (i.e. re-creation of same articles, same 'Krab*' username etc. The IP can be treated in a similar way, just blocks will have to be shorter than indef. Hope that helps- enjoy the use of your new block button- looks like you need it here :) Let me know if you have any more questions. Petros471 20:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been doing a pre-archive sweep of my talk page before archiving, and I wanted to check: has the above has been sorted or do you need any more help? Petros471 17:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flight planning[edit]

Following your comments I have revised the LEAD section of Flight planning. Could you have a quick look and perhaps advise me of any further desirable changes. Thanks Murray Langton 08:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User OMG...[edit]

Thanks for pointing this out. I hadn't noticed it. I've just given an indefinite block to another user for sexual innuendo in his user name. And what about this new user, User:Dan brown ? Unless he is the writer himself, he should also be immediately blocked (reason : impersonating a VIP). If you can't do it yourself, give me a message. JoJan 15:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

check your history everyday for deletes. a friend

RfA Notification[edit]

Hello! I noticed that you have interacted with user:Staxringold who is currently undergoing an RfA and thought that you might be interested in participating at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Staxringold 2. You have received this message without the endorsement of the candidate involved, and this is not a solicitation of support, it is only an effort to make RfA discussions better (for more information see user:ShortJason/Publicity). Thank you in advance for your participation. ShortJason 19:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...[edit]

Oh, that was your headline? You have quite a talent for article writing, and I'm not just kissing butt. It might be the first time in...EVER that I was interested in the Gettysburg address. As for me, all I can write is fictional stories... hey, do you know if there is a wiki for user-created fiction? -RadSkat3 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nice catches on the Battle of Tours[edit]

Good work on the edits on that article. I did a great deal of work on that article, but you were dead on that the introductory paragraphs were clumsy. Thanks much for your editing on them. old windy bear 18:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OUTSTANDING WORK![edit]

Your rewrite and restructuring took a decent article and has it on the verge of being a great article! Thanks so much for your help! old windy bear 20:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA[edit]

Kaisershatner/archive3, thank you for participating in my RfA. It passed with an amazingly unopposed 77/0/1. Thanks for the support everybody! If you see me doing anything wrong, want to ask me something, or just want to yell in my general direction, leave me a note on my talk page. I promise to try and knock out Wikipedia's problems wherever I may find them!

Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln[edit]

The Gettysburg Address has long inspired me. The men of 1776 weren't the world's first revolutionaries, but they took a giant step in days when everyone had a king, and the great liberal democracies were all in the future. Lincoln summed up what they fought for then and underlined what they were now fighting for. Sometimes I wish that the leaders of the present day were more like Lincoln and less like kings.

It was a thrill for me to visit Washington early last year and to climb the icy marble steps of the Lincoln Memorial to look up into that gaunt face. I felt much the same thrill in reading the article. There's a lot of research, thought and love in there. Thank you! --Jumbo 03:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need an honest opinion[edit]

I need you to give me an honest opinion on a set of articles. I think there are a set of articles that are being used as news. As we both know, Wikipedia policy is against using Wikipedia as producing news reports.

As you can see at the main FIFA World Cup 2006 article, there are the standings which with game summaries with a link to the official match report to each game. Therefore, it makes those articles above unecesary and against Wikipedia policy. Can you give me your opinion on the situation? Kingjeff 23:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McEwen thanks[edit]

Greetings, Kaiser!
I've not been around for the past month or so and I only yesterday saw your best wishes on my Bob McEwen article being posted on the front page. I'm grateful for your support. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 16:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned anon comment[edit]

You said I was banned for a week. I was banned for a month. I'm not looking for trouble but please explain why you are in a computer all day checking our editing. Don't you do something with your life. I'm not commiting vandalism. I just want to talk to you. Thanks

Greetings![edit]

Hey, Kaiser! Haven't been around much for the past month or two and wanted to say hello upon my return. Anything big I missed in those weeks? PedanticallySpeaking 14:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Kaiser! I told you I was working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1. I'd welcome your comments. PedanticallySpeaking 16:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave up reading the damn thing because it is so long. Caro should have broken it up into two or more books. PedanticallySpeaking 16:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Kaiser, Nice work . Bharatveer 03:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rand[edit]

I know you did some good clean-up work on the two main Rand-related articles a while back. As I remember it, your views were sympathetic to hers but you weren't an obvious partisan.

Given this, I wonder if you would want to get re-involved in the mess that these articles have become. There are admins edit-warring, strange forks being formed and general craziness. Not an appealing picture, I admit, but it's one that you might be able to contribute to positively, if that's your desire. Al 02:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bricker Amendment[edit]

You were kind enough to comment on the previous FAC for the Bricker Amendment article. I have now proposed it as a featured article after extensive revisions and would appreciate your vote here. PedanticallySpeaking 17:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:400blows.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:400blows.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Killian documents]][edit]

I replied to your comments in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tphinney"> my talk area</a>. Tphinney 22:54, 15 Sugust 2006 (UTC)

Mormonism and Judaism[edit]

You wrote to me: If you'd like to weigh in on the proposed split, I would welcome your view. Kaisershatner 17:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no real opinion on whether that article should or should not be split up. I did add a section entitled "Basic irreducible difference" stating some things which need to be mentioned on the Jewish point of view - whether this remains a single article or is split up. I think many Mormons might not fully appreciate that their accptance of Jesus might, in the Jewish view, quite outweigh any similarities that exist between their religion and Judaism. The Jewish negative attitude to Jesus is mainly due to the nasty doings of much earlier Christians, long before the rise of the Latter Day Saints (doings which were certainly contrary to the teachings of Jesus himself as expressed in the New Testament). But whatever its origin, this Jewish attitude is a fundmental fact which must be taken into account.Adam keller 12:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming template changes[edit]

Hi, I've just noticed that you recently left a templated userpage message. I'm just bringing to your attention that the format and context of these templates will be shortly changing. It is recommended that you visit WikiProject user warnings and harmonisation discussion pages to find out how these changes could affect the templates you use. We also would appreciate any insights or thoughts you may have on the subject. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 14:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Rv's my page[edit]

Thanks, btw do you know how to add the tag "This page has been vandalized one time" on my main page? Valoem ^talk 19:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dont remove warning templates[edit]

Those would be {{wr}}, {{wr1}}, {{wr2}}, and i believe {{wr3}}. Hope that helps! If ther is anythign else i can do to help you, please let me know. Chris Kreider 17:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your indefinite block of an IP[edit]

You blocked 206.180.101.19 indefinitely not long ago. I can understand that there's a lot of vandalism from that IP, but I thought that IPs weren't meant to be indefinitely blocked unless they are open proxies. Is there a problem with placing a definite long term block on the IP? _JD^talk 19:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

195.93.21.41 vandalism[edit]

Hi, there is the user 195.93.21.41 continues with a persistent vandalism against the portuguese pretender Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza, aka Hilda Toledano in this wiki-page. He continues to insert this pretender in the category "impostor pretender" ( see the history of Hilda Toledano page) without any explanations. This is only his personal point of view because there are no impartial source affirm this pretender as impostor. Please help us in order to block this vandal. He is a supporter of the other portuguese pretender Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza so he want libel Maria Pia in order to favour Duarte Pio, but this is not possible in an impartial encyclopedia. User: 62.101.126.232 17:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this anonymous user (62.101.126.232) is the sock-puppet of a banned vandal. HE is the one vandalizing the pages. Charles 22:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a vandal. The only vandal here is the 195.93.21.41 continues to vandalize Hilda Toledano page and libel this pretender with his personal point of view. Is a real vandal infact you can see his talk page. Please block this vandal. User: 62.101.126.232 21:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

I am happy to continue discussing, and will stop reverting as soon as you do. JBKramer 18:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killian documents RFC[edit]

Hi, thanks for the headsup and for initiating the RFC process. I'll admit that I was beginning to lose my patience, and as such was becoming perhaps a little more heated than necessary and ending up nowhere. With any luck, the RFC process might resolve this particular question once and for all, so we can all direct our energies to more profitable endeavours. We can only hope. — Imp i 20:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, although I'm not sure what this does, or how to make comments on an RFC. I'll look about. htom 01:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Figured it out. So simple it was hard. Thank you. htom 01:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

194.80.240.66[edit]

I checked my talk page, and it appears you have given me a "final warning" please be awear that this is a University IP address, and it is used by muliple users who would be disavantaged if they are blocked from the site 194.80.240.66 16:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crusades[edit]

Be Bold, ok but don't be reckless. Ran out of time to leave comments. There are considerable debates on similar changes to the article in the discussions. Will take up specific issues on the page.--Tigeroo 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Crusades[edit]

As you said, the adoption of the standard campaignbox layout is for compatibility with {{Infobox Military Conflict}}, which should eventually wind up being placed on all the articles for each Crusade (and can be seen here, here and here) , and with other campaignboxes related to the Crusades (as here and here). There are, admittedly, many articles that don't have the infobox yet; but it should be fairly easy to add at least a rudimentary version to them. I'll try to find some time to add a few myself; but I'm not an expert on this topic, so I may not be the best person to be creating them. Kirill Lokshin 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complex vandalism[edit]

You're welcome. As it turns out, [User: I hate featured article]] was almost certainly also part of group (same pattern of edit summary and having same anon IP edit right after, claiming revert); that account got indef blocked (after first edit) because of the name. John Broughton | Talk 22:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:64.251.54.194[edit]

64.251.54.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is inactive? You didn't notice the bit where they vandalized my userpage five minutes after receiving a BV-N? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. If you look further down on their contribution tree, you'll see that the IP in question has basically no constructive edits for a period of several months. The user in question has a well-established history of vandalizing, leaving, and returning to vandalize (interrupted by periodic blocks). As such, I'm not sure how a block could be construed as anything but preventative, under the circumstances.
In any case, Aeropagica took care of it, so it's not worth worrying about much more. I'd just ask you to be more careful/dilligent in the future. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:FACE3333[edit]

Hey, I hate to say anything (I rarely complain about blocks), but this guy has something like 22 edits over 11 days, all of which are blatant vandalism (gay/penis type, some defammatory), and incessant warnings. I'm all for giving people a second chance, but shouldn't this one have receieved an indef? -Patstuart^talk|edits 19:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC) See:[1][reply]

)

Kaisershatner 19:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-admin (albeit with a sick amount of edits), I can't. -Patstuart^talk|edits 19:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, [2] will do. :) Patstuart^talk|edits 19:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the help with reverting vandalism on my talk page. Looks like I made someone upset recently. --Onorem 17:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boortz[edit]

Keep in mind lead length when expanding this - we should be around two paragraphs for this article lead. Morphh ^(talk) 15:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snohomish High School Cannon incident[edit]

On December 20th/21st the SHS article was semi-protected in response to vandalism after an article published in the Seattle PI was publicized on the AP, Fark, Digg, SA, etc. the short lived craze has died down in the intervening two weeks and it would seem that the protection is no longer relevant. As it would appear that you're the user who instituted the protection it would be appreciated if you could lift the restriction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snohomish_Senior_High_School (PsychoSmith 23:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Judaism/Jesus[edit]

Maybe a short section - "judiasms view of religions based around Jesus"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FT2 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Substing[edit]

Please do not subst the sprotected templates, they are meant to be a short term thing (and long term should be using sprotected2) so transcluding them is ok. By substing them you are just opening them up to being messed with, and thats not a good thing. The original templates are protected against vandalism and should remain that way too :) ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hasmonean[edit]

No problem, I'll give it another look when I'm more awake :) Trebor 21:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Martin[edit]

Hello, I just saw your amazing work on Tony Martin's page. I am still new to Wikipedia, still learning. Thanks so much for showing me the way! :-) Your editing of the article made it, formally, much cleaner, but you also brought balance to it, showing both points of view, and bringing precise infos and citations. I will try and follow your footsteps! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benisek00 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hmmm. Avocadop (dont know if Avocadop is Tony Martin) has not heeded the warnings against 3 Revert rule. How do I proceed to the next level? Whats the next level of warning before asking for a ban? Thanks.Benisek00 21:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments: 1. Yeah, I shouldnt assume avocadop is Tony Martin. It has been assumed by another user before me, which made me ask the question.

Avocadop corrected a mistake I made thinking that he was honorary bannister at law, because of what the site mentionned: "Barrister-at-law Hon. Society Gray's Inn". The fact that he knew exactly what was what, and very quickly after my edit, made me think that he knew Tony Martin very well, or he was Tony Martin himself. But of course, it doesnt prove or mean anything.

2. About signing: ok, I now understand the power of 4 ~ one after the other. I shall use this power.

3. Personal attack: youre right, I got carried away, but please do recognize the number of edits I had done previously either with no comment, or with very polite comments - also given the comments that Avocadop himself left about others. So, my bad. But not mine only :-)

Benisek00 23:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Tony Martin, now that we agree that a man who considers "Did 6 millions really die?" as serious historical work and defends the work of Ernst Zundel, can we delete the "guilty by association"-type remarks? Benisek00 14:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I couldnt find a source for "(not a controlling role as they falsely asserted)". Benisek00 14:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind comments. Concerning the Truth Establishment Institute, you disagree that it is antisemitic. Please take a look at http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2005/usa.htm. It says basically that the owner of the website is also the publisher of "The synagogue of Satan". If that book, and that author, and his website, are not antisemitic, I dont know what is... :-) Benisek00 19:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for making it clearer to me. I understand and agree with you. I changed the section. Not sure it's exactly WP: NPOV now, but you are free to correct it. Thanks Benisek00 16:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I-95 better or worse?[edit]

I made some changes based on your suggestions. Better or worse? changes. Thanks. --MPD^{T / C} 18:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:86.134.30.187[edit]

The following was put on the User talk:86.134.30.187 page: "Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Kaisershatner 18:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)".

When adding suggestions to a IP addresses talk page, bear in mind that these IP adresses change automatically everytime some users use the Internet wirelessly. Therefore commenting on the talk page will almost certainly not be recieved by the person who it is intended for, as their IP address will have changed, and someone else (for example, my computer) will be assigned that IP address. Furthermore, adding suggestions to a talk page everytime an unregistered user vandalises an article you care about merely wastes time, as if someone wants to vandalise Wikipedia, they most often remain unregistered, so little can be done. A better use of one's time would be to merely revert the vandalism and leave it at that, instead of traipsing of on a vain attempt at improving the character of Internet users. 86.134.30.187 19:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting used to the stuff at AIV is hard!! thanks for the adivce -- Telly addict 17:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me with something?[edit]

I was wondering how to create a contents box on my userpage. Claidheamohmor 20:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have another question. On my user page the userboxes are overlapping another subsection of my page, how do I stop that?

Executive order 9835[edit]

Yeah, I was just kind of torn I guess, it is from 1947 which is good, you're probably right. Anyway thanks for helping on the article, it's up for peer review right now if you have any input, hopefull we can bring it up to GA status.A mcmurray 19:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of United States Presidential trivia[edit]

An editor has nominated United States Presidential trivia, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Presidential trivia (second nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 09:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

No, there was no arrest and certainly no jailing. the Philippine government does not allow warrantless arrest unless one is caught in the act of rebellion against the government, theft, drug trafficking, violence, rape or murder. Those were just NBI clearance photographs required for obtaining a passport, the subject was even smiling. A mugshot would have the person holding a rectangular board with name and case number written on it.

The vandals are a group of disgruntled former members who were fired from a business owned by the person in question due to misappropriation of funds. Since then they have been creating havoc everywhere posting fabricated information.

But there was actually a case filed, it has nothing to do with prostitution though but employing workers below 18 (considered to be minors). The case was dismissed on October of 2005 due to lack of merit. The alleged underage employees retracted their complaint and testified to the contrary saying that they were not really employees but were only payed to pose as employees by plotters. It was a very serious matter. Lots of vindictiveness.

Thank you for implementing WP policies on that picture. It was illegally obtained. Sir, may I humbly request that you delete this communication after you have read it? I just though that I owe it to you to reply. Sincerely, Armando Barrera 21:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]